Your Theories Won?t Do It

[Dillon Rankine]

How could you possibly know this? This is McAdams 101 stuff.

I see NO evidence. I see a bunch of UNSUPPORTED claims made by the WC. Then you expect people to believe that you were a CTer. Please.

You?re like a broken record with that citations gibberish. I once cited a bibliography and you said I didn?t cite once source. You don?t even read posts and copy your entire shtick from CT books ? Presumed Guilty, was it?

If you?d read that post you?d understand I wasn?t citing evidence, I was listing conclusions, hence why that?s what?s there. You?d also have noticed my challenge at the bottom.

[Dillon Rankine]

There can be no serious, evidence-based rebuttal to a LNer claim because they have made up their minds and closed shop.

This is a conclusion, not evidence. Where's the beef?

What?s with you CTs? Rob did this as well. I?m not listing citations I?m listing conclusions, hence why there are conclusions instead of citations. 

A rifle without a single print of Oswald's on it and 3 hulls that Fritz found in a tight group near the SN window, which he picked up with his bare hands and later tossed on the floor in a more scattered arrangement so he could take a more credible photo of the crime scene.

No citation, I see  So three shells were still found beneath the window, yes?

• There isn't a bullet trajectory from the 6th floor window into JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and out his throat at the C7 vertebrae, otherwise, prove it sucka.

This is just outdated BS. Bullets don?t travel in straight lines, and there is no measurement saying the exit was at C-7 (that?s one claim about the entrance).

• CE-399 had no blood, bone or tissue on it after causing 7 wounds and smashing thru bones.

So? It was also in drawers, pockets, under stretchers, etc. Last I checked, blood isn?t superglue.

• CE-399 was pristine (>95% intact) after causing 7 wounds and smashing thru 3 bones.

Pristine is a subjective judgement. Mild visual deformity is apparent and the equations all clearly suggest that it could have emerged in its condition from that feat. The world is never as simple you lot would like it to be.

• CE-399 was planted on the wrong gurney.

That?s a claim for which I see no citation! It?s on a gurney, doesn?t matter which one. Also, these conspirators seem even less intelligent than the CTs  Aranging the shells perfectly side-by-side like nobody would notice, leaving the Mauser they used instead of the Carcano, planting the to-good-to-be-true 399 on the wrong stretcher, etc. Seriously, what handicaps are we dealing with here? 

Conclusion: CE-399 was either magic or shot into a swimming pool then planted at Parkland.

Again, you lot are priceless. Demand citations from us then never give them for highly specific, laughable claims.

And being a classic armchair psychoanalyst, you should know.

Somebody doesn?t know what a psychoanalyst is 

They described a set of traits which are on the list of psychopathic traits. It?s not an professional analysis, its moving my eyes from page to the next.

Again, your false premise that the bullet fragments were linked to the rifle result in GIGO. You haven't even linked Oswald to the rifle with credible evidence. In fact, all the evidence you cite supports Oswald being a sheep-dipped patsy and not a lone nut assassin.

Again with this citation stuff. Nothing supports LHO being a ?sheep-dipped patsy? for if there were, I?d have been all over it in my CT days.

[John Iacoletti]

It?s a broad statement which notes the confounding effect of errant data, not an argument.

Bull.  It's an appeal to ridicule in order to make a case for not examining the evidence too closely.

Your biggest failure in all your responses is this failure to disengage from ?argument mode? and focus on things in the real world; reality is not a logical syllogism waiting for you to debunk.

The charge to "focus on things in the real world" is an excuse for having insufficient evidence for your conclusion.

It means that different models of understanding the shooting come with associated predictions about the state of the evidence (i.e., Kennedy was shot in the front entails that this must be possible given the available data; we?ll return to your failure to grasp this point next). 

I didn't "fail to grasp that".  I agree with it.

? rule out the impossible ones and your left with a handful, and the whole reason Occam?s razor is a thing should tell you which one you side with until further evidence shows up.

What "impossible ones" do you think you've ruled out?  As already discussed, Occam's Razor doesn't apply when your argument is "this unlikely thing is possible, therefore it happened".

If a model proposes (as in Phantom Shot) that the shooting was executed with only two bullets, we expect find evidence to support that this even possible ? there isn?t, so it?s false.

Says who?

Despite what CT/mister lawyer-men tell you, you can?t use induction until the ?truth? appears. There?s bullet evidence, a weapon, victims, etc. Models are a way of finding order in that chaos, and their specific hypotheses is what rule them out. The LN model remains standing.

Remains?  When has it ever stood?  All you can make an argument for is that you can't rule it out.  Some models say you can.  Models all involve some degree of unproven or unprovable assumptions -- some more justified than others.

The shot works at T-1.

Great.  Do you just ignore all evidence that it was lower because the assumed shot no longer works?

Errant data is meaningless sh*t like ?dead SS agents,? ?gunsmoke? on the knoll, etc.

That's easy for you to say.

Some facts are more relevant than others, and terms like ?noise in the data? don?t exist for nothing. Order in the data that happens to conform to one model (the LN) is highly, highly unlikely to occur by chance. (Statisticians even have a way showing this ? the p-value.)

Feel free to elaborate on this order and why you think that it must either be true or "occur by chance".

[John Iacoletti]

Weitzman?s honest mistake is more plausible than ?all the photographs were altered.?

Who said the alternative was "all the photographs were altered"?  What photographs?

He even admitted that his reasoning for saying Mauser was that the Carcano has a bolt resembling a Mauser ? in fact; it was designed to mimic the Mauser, and was less commonly known.

Yes, and how do you evaluate whether this is true or not? You examine the details given in the description and compare it to the claim that it was identified "at a glance".  You look at statements from others.  You look at the fact that he didn't just say "looks like a Mauser", he said that it was a 7.65 Mauser -- a very specific thing.  Then you consider that false recantations are not an extraordinary occurrence.
 

That?s a unique conclusions to jump to. Last I checked there?s a rifle and shells.

Yes there are a rifle and shells presented as evidence.  So what?  Whether they were photographed as discovered is disputed.  Whether there were 2 shells or 3 shells is ambiguous in the documentary evidence.  When the shells were fired (or even if they were fired in one case) cannot be known.

Bullet fragments with human tissue found in limousine in which people were shot? Yeah, I can see where you might have difficulty understanding the proposal: it really gets the noggin joggin.

Depends on how much basis you have for "found in the limousine", which is not much.  Also, "human tissue" doesn't mean a whole lot.  Skin cells are "human tissue".  Any reason to think that this "human tissue" came from Kennedy's head or brain?

Order in that data, mainly. Of course, the only reason you doubt it is because you?re fualty views on human memory ? a subject of intense scientific study (Nobel prizes and everything) which have revelaed that it?s malleable by design (of evolution). 

Again, I don't know who you're arguing with, but I agreed with that.  The problem for you is that the "Oswald did it" model relies on faulty human memory.

His guess done from memory is your evidence? Even if he?s right, who cares? It?s possible that evil conspiracy people planted it and never uttered a word, but totally impossible for someone to have saw something on the floor and put it on a stretcher, and said nothing afterward? Who cares?

I care.  If you're going to claim that CE399 was at all related to the shooting at Houston and Elm, you need more than, "well some kind of bullet was found by a hospital technician somewhere".  Who said anything about "evil conspiracy people planting it and never uttering a word"?  Who said "it's impossible for someone to have seen something on the floor and put it on a stretcher"?  Possible does not equal Happened.

I described that multiple people gave descriptions of Oswald that consist of psychopathic personality traits.

...and this is evidence of what?

[John Iacoletti]

If you?d read that post you?d understand I wasn?t citing evidence, I was listing conclusions

Some people prefer conclusions that actually follow from the evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

So? It was also in drawers, pockets, under stretchers, etc. Last I checked, blood isn?t superglue.

Great.  So is there any reason to think that CE399 ever went through any human body?

That?s a claim for which I see no citation! It?s on a gurney, doesn?t matter which one. Also, these conspirators seem even less intelligent than the CTs  Aranging the shells perfectly side-by-side like nobody would notice, leaving the Mauser they used instead of the Carcano, planting the to-good-to-be-true 399 on the wrong stretcher, etc. Seriously, what handicaps are we dealing with here?

This is "Richard Smith's" trademark "the vast and perfect conspiracy that I imagine would never do X, therefore there was no conspiracy" argument.

[Dillon Rankine]

Great.  So is there any reason to think that CE399 ever went through any human body?

There?s no direct evidence linking it to any wound, however, what evidence does exist strongly indicated it could have been the SBT. Saying ?this is plausible given the evidence? is not the same as saying ?possible = true.? I understand that anything not framed within the context of a fallacies 101 course is confusing to you, so you?ll just have to take my word for it.

This is "Richard Smith's" trademark "the vast and perfect conspiracy that I imagine would never do X, therefore there was no conspiracy" argument.

It could have been a group of the most humbling, inefficient, low IQ spoons ever assembled and I?m sure they?d still understand that placing these 3 shells right next to each other would look suspect, or that leaving a ?pristine? bullet for a perfect match might raise some eyebrows.

if anything is fallacious here, it?s your hilariously out-of-touch way of defending bad ideas. It seems like something out of a movie ? so comedically obvious that it?s a plant, but apparently nobody else thought so.   

[Bill Chapman]

There?s no direct evidence linking it to any wound, however, what evidence does exist strongly indicated it could have been the SBT. Saying ?this is plausible given the evidence? is not the same as saying ?possible = true.? I understand that anything not framed within the context of a fallacies 101 course is confusing to you, so you?ll just have to take my word for it.

It could have been a group of the most humbling, inefficient, low IQ spoons ever assembled and I?m sure they?d still understand that placing these 3 shells right next to each other would look suspect, or that leaving a ?pristine? bullet for a perfect match might raise some eyebrows.

if anything is fallacious here, it?s your hilariously out-of-touch way of defending bad ideas. It seems like something out of a movie ? so comedically obvious that it?s a plant, but apparently nobody else thought so.   

I wouldn't put it past any shooter to place the shells in a perfect row. A kind of 'in-your-face' gesture.